- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
there is nevertheless always a sense of that settling
I think I understand on the surface, but not the depth of it; I can't say I empathise. I've yet to meet someone that can fulfill everything at once, but it's yet to become a source of dread, and I've yet to really try. I'm a loner, still content to drown myself in material entertainment for now.
I doubt you expected anything anyway, but sorry friend.
people get their perception of inequity from their personal experiences of actual inequity which are produced by extremely well-documented human cognitive biases. those are facts and im not gonna debate them like they're mere conjectures based on exaggerated victim complexes and statistical gaming
On the former part, yeah, that's what I said. For the Latter, I didn't say anything about victim complexes or statistical gaming. The charitable interpretation of changing statistics would be making a positive change in a group, not literally faking the statisics.
your notion that we can end inequity just by getting face to face is so naive and ignorant that i genuinely cannot fathom your perspective at all.
Well I assumed by "intimate interpersonal relationships" you meant somone you were close with but struggled with conflict, and not someone stalking you down the street. I also thought you were talking about wealth, which perhaps explains what must have seemed a very strange example otherwise, though I suspect you already knew.
those whom i would form intimate relationships with are all positioned uniquely and inequitably within the social contexts which we share. from that there is a barrier in experiential understanding which cannot be surmounted
I don't believe you when you say it cannot be surmounted. Even if it couldn't, there are undoubtedly others with the same experiential understanding, even if not wholly, partially in each person. And so what if there isn't an identical clone of you that you can perfectly communicate with, is there no value in the exchange of ideas and experiences without demand of full experiential understanding? Is that not why you're here, where we're all anonymous?
From that report:
The remaining households (10.5 percent, down from 11.1 percent in 2018) were food insecure at least
some time during the year, including 4.1 percent with very low food security (not significantly different from 4.3 percent in 2018). Very low food security is the more severe range
of food insecurity where one or more household members experienced reduced food
intake and disrupted eating patterns at times during the year because of limited money
and other resources for obtaining food. Among children, changes from 2018 in food insecurity and very low food security were not statistically significant. Children and adults
were food insecure in 6.5 percent of U.S. households with children in 2019; very low food
security among children was 0.6 percent. In 2019, the typical food-secure household spent
24 percent more on food than the typical food-insecure household of the same size and
So, the average American spends 24% more on food that these supposed malnourished, so presumably they get around 80% of the food the others do.
Now, you see, more than 2 in 3 Americans are overweight or obese. They (and much of the west) have an obesity crisis. So maybe you can see why I don't find it very alarming that people are eating 80% of what makes them overweight and obese.
Furthermore, by the standards it states in its methodology someone could qualify as one of those 35 million for any reason between them deciding to eat less food to save money, or if they forgot their wallet at home one day and missed a meal.
How many Americans starve to death each year?
Buddy, I can spot an American from 3,000 miles away just by their political views.
Well, you're literally 4,000 miles off the target. Again, I'm British.
Your response to Communism was to dismiss it on the grounds that it is idealist
Well, good intentions are a good start. A better start than abandoning the good intentions because you believe doing good is idealist.
I maintan my good intentions, they merely have nothing to do wth communism.
leading us to believe that the universe is somehow naturally bad and so we'd better just go along with it.
Not at all. Just that you need to apply some thought to the incentives you create when you do make changes, even with those good intentions.
Game theory doesn't have anything to do with Communism.
Indeed it doesn't, it's a model involved in social science. It deals well with emergent systems produced by indepenadent actors with simple motivations, which is a good start as a model to understand how people and the economy react.
It doesn't sound smart at all, its name isn't especially indicative of its meaning.
Any country where...
Ok, more specific. What ideology, market system, or principles of governance would you consider to be a centrist position.
Under Communism -- true Communism -- there is no hierarchical leadership, no dictator, no class and no government.
Yes, yes, and under capitalism there's no state either. No true communism exists, no true capitalism exists. They're all mixed economies.
But it just so turns out that whenever people attempt communism it ends in poverty and often democide, and whenever people attempt capitalism it ends in people leading lives with a relatively higher standard of living.
Despite the perhaps inexcusable violence the Russian revolution started with the very best intentions.
Yes, kill the bourgeoisie, very good intentions. The entire premise is built on class warfare and revenge. Oh but I'm sure they had it coming right?
same myths and half-truths you have been indoctrinated with
Tell me, point by point, exactly what you're talking about. If you are to 'un-indoctrinate' me, you must be very very specific, and tell me where to go that I can verify what you say.
your entire country has a right wing bias. The centre is not where it should be, or indeed where it is in any other developed nation
Despite me directly telling you before, you still have no idea what my country is.
If doing good is hard, the solution is not to give up (or even do the opposite). You seem to think it is
No, I don't. As I already said, Intentions alone are insufficient. I think planning out incentives are how you get anywhere, as in game theory, towards improvement. And evidence based policy helps too where even that fails. But that's for the material. For the rest, good is achieved by a shared principled and consistent morality.
What would you even consider to be centrist anyway?
Well, people get their perception of inequity from personal experience of unfairness and reporting of statistics. You want that at a level where it isn't a cause of confict between you and others, yes?
If so, honestly I don't see why you find that so important, I would imagine such differences between people are typically resolvable, face to face at least - perhaps your case is exceptional, or I just lack experience, or I don't understand x)
not sure why it would.
Some have told me it has helped them. In taking ownership of their situation and putting in the work to better it, they respect their position within inequity, having themselves to blame for it, good or bad. Essentially no more than the assumtion of internal ability over external influences. A belief.
i find myself subject to particular ontological limitations - bounded consciousness and social inequity
Do you consider technology to be able to help with either? The former depending on your meaning - extra-human senses, computational assistance, digital consciousness, virtual reailty. The latter owing to a potential partial post-scarcity future where perhaps inequity might be less important.
You didn't pick up a raging far right bias from any pursuit which was intellectual
Well it's either that or I don't have a far right bias .
I've already traced my path through ideology to you. You can see exactly what I've seen that is right and what is left from that.
Ah, the old: good is too hard, so let's try bad.
No. I'm talking about game theory. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I'll be ignoring the rest.
I expect no more from you.